Published February 9, 2026

The federal budget reconciliation law (H.R. 1 /OBBBA) represents the most significant rollback of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in history. While Congress passed this law at the federal level, its most significant effects will be experienced in cities and towns. 

Mayors and municipal leaders now stand on the front lines of its implementation. 

Local governments will have to confront rising food insecurity, growing economic instability, and increasing pressure on already strained municipal systems — without the resources to absorb those impacts. This is precisely why cities need a clear, coordinated plan to prepare for what comes next. 

FRAC’s new City Playbook: Preparing for the Impacts of H.R. 1/OBBBA on Food Security and Local Economies provides that roadmap. 

What the Playbook Provides 

The playbook equips municipal leaders with a practical framework to understand and respond to the local consequences of H.R. 1. It analyzes how SNAP benefit reductions, expanded time limits and reporting requirements, eligibility losses, cost shifts to states and counties, and the elimination of SNAP-Ed will affect household stability, neighborhood food access, local retailers and food supply chains, municipal service demand and revenues, and public trust in local institutions. 

At the center of the resource is a concise 13-point municipal readiness checklist that allows cities to quickly assess preparedness and identify priority gaps. Building on the checklist, the playbook provides targeted operational guidance. Lastly, it translates H.R. 1’s major SNAP changes into the local fiscal and operational implications.  

The Fiscal Reality Facing America’s Cities 

Cities enter this moment already under severe fiscal stress. 

Recent national assessments show that fiscal stress in the nation’s largest cities is widespread. In the previous months, multiple major cities experienced credit-rating downgrades, and at least 20 of the 25 most populous U.S. cities have reported budget gaps for fiscal year (FY) 2026. National surveys of city finance officers show the lowest optimism about future budgets since the years following the Great Recession. 

This strain is not limited to large cities. Municipal leaders across the country face the same underlying challenges: 

  • rising costs for housing, infrastructure, labor, and public safety; 
  • increasing demand for human services; and 
  • struggling downtown areas and diminishing support from state and federal levels. 

History makes the risk clear. When states face fiscal pressure, they often reduce aid to local governments. During the Great Recession, states closed budget gaps in part by cutting municipal assistance, forcing cities into a prolonged “new normal” of lower intergovernmental revenue. In many states, unrestricted state aid still accounts for more than 10 percent of total municipal revenue, and state funding constitutes a substantial share of education and local services. 

When state budgets tighten, cities feel the shock first and most acutely. 

Why H.R. 1 Creates a Direct Municipal Crisis 

H.R. 1 fundamentally reshapes the federal-state-local partnership that has long supported food access and local economic stability. The law reduces SNAP benefits, tightens and expands work and reporting requirements, restricts eligibility, eliminates nutrition education funding, and — most critically for municipalities — shifts substantial new administrative and benefit costs to states and counties. Beginning in FY 2027, states and some counties must absorb significantly higher SNAP administrative costs, and beginning in FY 2028, states must finance a share of SNAP benefits themselves — an unprecedented change. As states redirect resources to cover these new obligations, local aid will likely decline just as cities face rising demand for housing, food assistance, and emergency services. For municipal leaders, this is an immediate fiscal and operational threat. 

SNAP is also a core local economic stabilizer: Every federal dollar generates up to $1.80 in local economic activity during economic downturns, supporting neighborhood grocery stores, small retailers, and food suppliers. Recent federal disruptions illustrate how quickly communities feel the loss of nutrition benefits. During the federal government shutdown from Oct. 1 – Nov. 12, 2025, uncertainty and disruptions in SNAP issuance led families to cut back on food purchases, delay paying for medicine, and in some instances, lose their homes as they were unable to pay rent; retailers to experience sudden sales declines; and food pantries and faith-based organizations to face sharp increases in demand. H.R. 1 is projected to cut SNAP by approximately $187 billion over the next decade, replicating — and amplifying — these shutdown-era shocks by permanently removing billions of dollars from household purchasing-power and local economies. 

Reductions in food assistance also increase housing instability and demand for local services. As families divert limited income from rent and utilities to food, cities face increased pressure on shelters, housing agencies, public safety systems, and health services — costs borne largely by local governments. Charitable providers cannot replace federal nutrition assistance at this scale; when SNAP is cut, municipalities become the backstop. 

In summary, H.R. 1 shifts responsibility to lower levels. Cities will face increased challenges, stricter budgets, and rising service demands without adequate funding to handle these pressures. This change goes beyond just the federal budget; it undermines community strength. 

Take Action  

Advocates play a critical role in ensuring mayors become strong, visible partners in confronting the local harm caused by H.R. 1. FRAC’s playbook for cities is a framework, not a full solution, designed to help you and local leaders tailor your approach to your community. 

Advocates: (1) document the harm, (2) elevate the local impact, and (3) empower your mayor to be the clearest, loudest voice to Congress. 

Mayors understand how federal decisions affect their communities. Their credibility and proximity to residents make them essential messengers.